We shall have to apply the previous three foundations to real situations. But to really understand these situations, we need some intellectual tools, that we shall introduce in this chapter. These tools are not ethical rules by themselves, but they clarify the way we must apply these rules to real people, who will always be more varied and unexpected than in any theory. It must not, however, be inferred that we could do without these tools: their misunderstanding is precisely what always turned the wonderful ideals into dictatorship: Christian ideal into inquisition, socialist ideal into Soviet dictatorship, hippie ideal into drugs etc. And if I devote an entire chapter to these tools, it is because I certainly not want to add General Epistemology to this list. On the contrary I explain scientifically how to avoid falling here again.
But I cannot do the job myself: it is up to you to understand and properly use these tools.
Thus, the previous chapter was the engine, this one is the gear box, and the following the wheels. We always need all three together, none can do anything useful alone.
This chapter is not in any treaty on ethics or politics. This is the precise reason why none was able to produce the ideal society we are all dreaming of.
It is not for looking intellectual that I devoted the first part of this book to non-Aristotelian logic: many ethical rules are non-Aristotelian in various ways. Ignorance of this fact is probably what caused the most suffering in History. With these conditions, it is ignoring non-Aristotelian logic which is stupid, reactionary, irrational. And in the 21st century, this ignorance has a well known name: extremism. So it is at least a gross misconduct, and often a crime. And in our wonderful epoch where we just need to go to our local grocer to find the way for Tai Chi or Yoga lessons, there is no more excuses. We can even say that to «ignore» non-Aristotelian logic is a premeditation of the crimes committed.
The vast majority of the ethical systems created until today were in «all or nothing», prohibiting or allowing without nuances. The more advanced indeed introduce the concept of special cases where a generally useful rule becomes dangerous. However, it generally remains in an Aristotelian analysis of increasing complexity, inevitably falling into various errors in reasoning or in the appreciation of the situations (chapter I-9) (chapter V-7 on entropy).
So we introduce here two key ideas:
(Instead of an Aristotelian statement in all or nothing, saying that something is always good, or always bad. See chapter I-3).
In this situation, neither one nor the other term is inherently good or inherently bad, it is their imbalance which leads to unfortunate consequences.
Please note that this rule temperates itself: There is a common mind control fallacy that everything would be a matter of balance. In reality there are ALSO things which are always inherently good or inherently bad, without nuance or non-duality, see chapter I-5 on the reasoning mistakes in the quadripolar diagram.
To be noted that only meditation, not intellectual analysis, can properly handle non-dualities. Hence the training requirement in meditation for law makers, politicians and magistrates, and the gross professional misconduct of not doing so.
(Morally to avoid, but not illegal. This is indeed a very useful application of the principle of separation of powers between science and justice).
Clearly, the moral judgement itself may be gradual, or even non-dual! (An idea of which I claim paternity, as of January 2015).
We can find many examples: extreme sexuality (Chapter VI-5) money (Chapter VI-8), dangerous sports, etc. With these conditions, only the propaganda for these things could be prohibited and punishable.
This way of defining an ethical rule is totally opposed to a common interpretation in most religions and political systems, which says not only that something is bad, but that in more the people who do it also are inherently and irredeemably bad. For example, a raped woman would become «impure» and should be punished for sex outside of marriage. We recognize here a certain interpretation of the Quranic law, but we find exactly the same vicious reasoning everywhere: Calvinist predetermination, Catholic «virtue», capitalist disdain for the unemployed (that yet they create themselves) and even Marxism, which sees people as «bad» because of the situation of their parents.
On the contrary, we recognize, in some situations, the right of people to seek the satisfaction of a taste which does not harm others, and even to be protected by the law from discrimination, stigma or retaliation, even if their behaviour is dangerous for them, or to avoid.
However this freedom is also a non-duality: it is not just a lack of prohibition, neither an endorsement nor a blessing. For instance a spiritual master who advise against alternative sexualities can not be convicted of discrimination, because actually these behaviours can be harmful to the spiritual practice (chapter VI-5) or in family life. So that we retain the right to advise against certain things in life. And to say it, without automatically have idiots saying that we censor them.
There also are limitations, for example in the case of dangerous sports or stupid bets: to deliberately endanger oneself, and especially encourage others to endanger themselves.
It is not just for looking nice that I devoted a whole part of this book (the first) to explain that things are not always in black and white, in all or nothing. Thus we find in ethics many non-dualities between seemingly opposite pairs of values (In France the news in this January 2015 points at the freedom of expression, of which «everyone» realized at this occasion that it is inextricably linked to its «opposite», the respect of others). Worse, the whole theory that I propose can actually be understood only with a non-conceptual mind. For those who do not master such a mind, my system will seem incomprehensible, absurd, or it could be explained in various seemingly contradictory ways (chapter I-9). The challenge is then for people mastering the non-conceptual mind, to explain things simply and appropriately to their interlocutor, who is attached to such or such peculiar opinion or Aristotelian concept.
(Since I cannot know in advance the opinions of each of my readers, my only advice is that you throw them all together in the bin at the entrance of the lab. You can recover them after, but they may seem worn out, ha ha ha!)
In order to understand the non-dualities seen in chapter I-3, we introduced the concept of quadripolar diagram, which clearly separates the cases where the extremes are in conflict, from the cases where they are in a compromise, or the cases where they are harmonized. This avoids the vertical confusions between these cases. Such vertical confusions are the most common cause of the degeneration of valuable ethical or political systems into dictatorship systems. For example the emancipation of women is often transformed into hatred of men. In the quadrupole diagram, both are on the same Yin side, but emancipation is at the top (constructive) while the destructive hatred is at the bottom. So we can no longer confuse them! We realise on such an example that the understanding of such a powerful intellectual tool is crucial for the proper functioning of the society, since we can find several quadripolar diagrams controlling important aspects of life:
-Progress and tradition.
When this non-duality is not understood, we get the revolutionary or reactionary extremism, or the religious or atheist fundamentalism.
Understanding this non-duality leads to accepting the necessary change, in a calm way and without destroying the good of the past.
-Freedom And discipline.
When this non-duality is not understood, we get the mess or the authoritarian regimes or lax regimes.
Understanding this non-duality puts discipline in the service of the purpose that we have freely chosen.
-The Genders relations.
When this non-duality is not understood, we get misogyny or misandry (which are the perfect example of reciprocal situations of equal evil, see chapter I-5).
When this non-duality is understood, then as conscious beings men and women have the same rights, duties, statutes and social recognition. But it is useless to hide the reality: a woman is not a man, and a man is not a woman. They each have different needs and responsibilities, when we come to the different roles that nature assigned them, concerning pregnancy and children (chapter VI-6). This is the application of the Third Foundation of scientific ethics, to people of different abilities or aspirations.
-Accusation and defence.
When this non-duality is not understood, each of the parties retains only the elements which serves it, and «forgets» the others: gulag justice, accomplice justice, or «American-style» justice completely cut off from real justice. I quoted the case of Florence Cassez (chapter V-12), where the assertion of her guilt has become a political line, regardless of any reference to facts. In the other direction, the perpetrators of the Morhange talc affair in France in 1972 (36 dead, a hundred of disabled, by an useless product which toxicity was at the time well demonstrated) have been discreetly pardoned by their «left» political buddies.
When this non-duality is understood, accounting with both incriminating or exculpatory elements results in a balanced judgement. The fact that it is a non-duality, not an averaging or trade-off, can still lead, in some cases, to extreme judgements (maximum penalty or total exoneration), but it is then based on evidence, or on human elements (considering the suffering).
Freedom and responsibility. We saw that freedom is an important value, which is derived directly from the first foundation of ethics (Chapter VI-2). However the second foundation on equality also leads to respect others:
-Our actions must not harm others. For example, freedom of expression can be done only with respect.
-The right of others requires us to perform certain actions: production, medical aid, education, etc.
From failure to understand this non-duality, the anarchists are only able to eternally throw the same Molotov cocktails, while the libertarians not yet made their one year training period with only the social minimum for resources.
There are other secondary non-duality, or which can be reduced to the previous ones. We made a detailed studies of the non-dualities in Chapter I-4, while the errors which arise from their misunderstanding are explained in chapter chapter I-5 .
It is hugely pathetic that the misunderstanding of a simple logical principle leads to wars, dictatorships, revolutions as bloody as illusory, catastrophic reactions, or millennia of sexism and oppression. It is therefore an urgent duty to teach non-Aristotelian logic at school, in the media, etc.
Those who refuse to do this endorse in full knowledge the responsibility for the crimes committed. Just like we are responsible of crimes committed under drug.
However, in most cases, what prevents the understanding of non-duality is not so much a lack of intelligence, than the neurotic attachment (chapter V-12) to one of the two sides, at random. Hence the need to also teach in school the basics of psychoeducation (chapter V-15), meditation and spirituality.
Formal rules express directly and clearly a moral or legal principle. For example, «thou shalt not kill.» This seems to have the advantage of clarity: what to do is explained directly, without ambiguity or complications. Unfortunately this clarity itself is illusory: the actual situations often are, indeed, ambiguous and complex. In the example above, self-defence, euthanasia, etc. are occasions where the simple rule can be counter-productive, producing more suffering and death than it prevents.
To add a brief description of the permitted cases does not solve the problems. For example the simple concept of Islamic Jihad (self-defence of the religious community) was regularly distorted into conquest war, and even recently (2015) in a mere gore video game scenario. In modern English, the notion of «self defence» is not much better, often equated to a right to arm, or even to kill preventively. In French, the term «légitime défense» is more accurate, but can not escape some distortions like shooting at an Arab because one «feels threatened».
Then, to account with all these cases becomes very complicated. This is why the modern democratic right is so complex. In vain, because the laws then become impossible to be known entirely, and even impossible to maintain or to debug. This is especially visible in the business law, where, without a good lawyer we are the target of all kings of legal predators, very smart at exploiting the most secret defects of the law (for instance false copyright claims, or fake anti-competition trials against ecology).
An informal ideal has the advantage of expressing the conduct in a much more apprehendable way, and especially to allow to derive all the cases. To explain an ideal can be done much more easily into novels or films. A pretty good example is the Elven ideal, as described by JRR Tolkien in «The Lord of the Rings.» But others were defined before or after, such as the socialist ideal, or the ecology ideal. The Elven ideal is well transmitted in some milieus, but only the judgement of its followers protects it against distortion (far right comics with sinister dark Elves, or video games with haughty elves, etc.). On the other hand, the socialist ideal of the 19th century has been coarsely distorted by the Marxists, to the point that few remember it today, and the ecology ideal of the 1970s is now following the same path. Thus there is no guarantee that an ideal is transmitted and thrives, if there is nobody who actually lives it, and maintain it over generations. People then respect it, even if they do not adhere. So the people were respecting the Cathars, or Buddhism in Tibet.
To remain in the informal also has serious advantages in repressive societies. For example in France, to claim to be an «elf» would be considered as a «sect», with dramatic consequences: hiring refusal, denigration in the media, isolation from neighbours, removal of children, etc. To enact rules, establish organizations, have bank accounts, etc. would even more «justify» this paranoia. To remain in the informal, in privacy, then allows the ideal to prosper, immune from suppression, especially sheltered from taking over (to use the same words to mean something else. For example in France, 2014 we had the ZADistes, who were in theory non-violent, amalgamated with violent far-right groups giving themselves the same name). These precautions are not an obstacle for friendship networks and help network to thrive, as long as they refrain from any sign visible to the eyes of the media.
So we can play on both ways, depending on the situation, and take advantage of one or the other, formal or informal. This involves understanding the two (and judges to recognize in which case we are). But the most efficient is still a government which allows its people to live the ideal, by law AND by the example. We shall see this last point a bit further: the transition.
Many ethical rules or laws have to apprehend non-duality.
However, we saw in Chapter I-9 that a non-Aristotelian statement cannot be reduced to a single Aristotelian statement, or even not to a simple conceptual system. For instance, a law defining the limits of freedom of expression would contain a lot of «but what if however» which would remove any simplicity. On the other hand, it can be expressed in many different conceptual systems, and even incompatible ones, for example Christian or humanist.
Learning the basic meditation allows to easily understand the non-dualities. Today, we can say that governments which do not do this are backward. The peoples too, but at least they have the excuse of being victims of the media propaganda against spirituality.
Therefore the least thing to request is that the governments, legislators and judges would be able to understand the non-dualities, and for this to be trained in meditation. Magistrates are already supposed to meet this requirement, since the court is already a non-duality between the prosecution and the defence. Thus a judge who does not «understand» non-duality is in a gross professional misconduct.
There are two opposite approaches on ethics and law:
-The rules or laws are written, and everyone is supposed to understand them well enough to apply them correctly. Written laws allow more autonomy to people, but they always end up falling on unforeseen cases, or if people do not understand non-dualities.
-The rules or laws are not written (or non-conceptual, or implicit), but the society has enough of psychoeducated guides, able of indicating the good conduct in each situation, including unexpected ones. But there not always are such guides! Or worse, there are impostors (frequent case in religions or in Marxism).
Here too, both approaches have specific advantages and disadvantages, so that in practice we shall apply a mixture of both.
The today state of law, which denies spirituality and non-Aristotelian logic, is exclusively based on Aristotelian written laws, making them complex, awkward to understand or difficult to maintain and to debug. Anyway, it was unable to totally avoid the «wise guide»: the judge. The problem is that he comes only after things were done wrong. And not all of them are wise... which can have horrible consequences, as in the Outreau case.
On the contrary, many traditional societies were based on wise guides: traditions, councils, etc. This is more supple, regarding specific cases, actions done under threat or suffering, etc. However this approach offers no control against biases by the guides, or against harmful traditions.
So, here again, psychoeducated guides save the day, thanks to their human appreciation of the situations and insensitivity to personal bias. But this is not enough, they can work it only if their base their decisions on a scientific ethics, as the one we propose here. Such a scientific ethics allows to pose general rules, without that these rules become harmful traditions or prejudices.
Here also there are two opposite approaches:
-The rules are mandatory (laws), and trespassing leads to a penalty. This system is safe... especially from the point of view of those who have the power, or who benefit of it. Even if we do not fall into dictatorship, the obvious drawback is that people cannot make good decisions if the law is too rigid to allow the necessary side steps. Even in today democracies many complain of feeling to be corseted. When we see laws enacted on how to dress, this is understandable.
-The rules are only guidelines, without penalty if a person breaks them. The responsibility of respecting them falls then on the individuals. The advantage is a greater flexibility, avoiding many situations that Aristotelian rules cannot all foresee. The obvious downside is that this system only works if everyone is psychoeducated, or at least honest, with enough free will and meditation capacity. That only one selfish, immoral or sociopathic comes along, and we have to come back to mandatory laws.
The second case was to be implemented in hippie communities, libertarians communities, New Age or environmentalist communities. But this regularly failed, by lack of efficient spirituality (The mere belief, even in the flowery Aquarius Age or in kind extraterrestrials, is not an efficient spirituality!! As to the environmentalists «style Charlie Hebdo» who «refuse spirituality», they... even not dared to try, actually, because they would appear plain ridiculous) Anarchists are even more masochistic: they claim a libertarian ideal, while rejecting the spiritual means to implement it in facts! In this epoch of spiritual renewal, this «error» is inexcusable, and we must them consider them as a far right movement, with their buddies the libertarians and the Maoists, who at least do not hide this orientation.
The notion of responsibility goes further than simply making choices: we must then accept the consequences of these choices. We will see for example in Chapter VI-5 on sexuality, that we must avoid ostentation and proselytizing. The reason is, precisely, to respect the freedom of others: to avoid making them feel desire for practices they do not necessarily want.
But more generally, responsibility implies performing actions to prevent various sufferings: engage in economic production, transmission of spiritual teachings, educating children, assisting those in need, etc. Thus the entire working of the society is based on our responsibility. If we refuse our responsibilities, then mandatory laws are the only way to maintain an organized society. This is the reason of the existence of organizations such as the Social Security, health care, retirements, schools, etc. We can even say that a free society, non-capitalist, will only exist when people take enough initiatives in this direction, and will be able to maintain them without being blocked by their psychological problems. But they need no permission to start to do so! An example of such an initiative is the Linux software. However, their success is limited by the incapacity of its developers to accept the necessary discipline of a large project, while remaining within reach of the majority of users. For this reason Linux is stagnating in the same small percentage of machines, while it was supposed to overthrow the capitalist Microsoft.
In other cases, the notion of responsibility involves the repair of damage. People who do this without being constrained by laws or judgements are highly respectable.
Also, politicians, religious people, spiritual teachers, philosophers, etc. have to set the right example. The media are ruthless toward wrongdoers, who see their ideas ridiculed and demeaned.
An example of the use of fuzzy logic (chapter I-3) in ethics would be the statement «we must not kill». Indeed, the clear and sharp Aristotelian rule, about a theoretically pure Aristotelian situation, is yet tempered in the non-Aristotelian reality with an important exception: self-defence. Thus, at which point do we pass from murder to self-defence? A whole gradation is possible:
-We are attacked gratuitously
-We provoked the attack (insults, threats, stalking, etc.)
-We started a brawl (mutually consented combat)
-We assaulted somebody without intent to kill
-We made a disproportionate use of a deadly weapon
-We deliberately killed somebody who did nothing to us
This makes that describing the situation in an Aristotelian way quickly becomes very complicated, depending on all the cases and possible exceptions. As discussed in Chapter I-9, a simple statement of a higher type of logic can replace a complicated legal scaffolding, as more shaky as various logical or factual errors can occur. However crime and honesty do not form a non-duality! These are two opposite things, antithetical and incompatible. Fuzzy logic is then the highest available in this case. It operates as Aristotelian logic, but replacing the yes-no by gradated values. This allows it to gradate the responsibilities too. This is what a court is supposed to do.
A useful application would be to identify sociopaths: usually they manage not to bear the responsibility for their crimes. For example, they cause another person do do it, and to be punished in their place. This small share of guilt is not brought against them by the Aristotelian judgements, and they come out «innocent» of the court. However, fuzzy logic allows to account this «little» guilt: a sociopath will accumulate it, but not a normal person.
Human history has accustomed us to the idea of revolution. Without denying the idea, we must still recognize that almost all revolutions were followed by a reaction (nearby complete return to the previous status) and often accompanied by excesses (destruction of valuable things: French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, Tibet). But the absence of revolution, even of it is more comfortable, brings the same result: stagnation, or slow sliding back, as in Europe in the years 2000-2010. The idea here is to find a better method, which will produce real progress, even if less ambitious.
In fact, what produces these painful setbacks and desperate stagnation is the natural neurosis of people, which often produces attachments to harmful customs and erroneous concepts: people do not understand their own interests, and they do no make the effort of studying other visions. Worse, they develop hatred against the liberating ideas, much like an autoimmune disease which destroys our own body. We see many examples: fundamentalist atheism, hatred of «hippies», anti-Darwinism, anti-ecology ...
Under these conditions, a psychoeducated minority enjoys only very restrained possibilities: any visible organization is at once hazed, any visible mark (clothing, language ...) is immediately blamed. And of course to override the law, even wisely, is immediately used against the good. The psychoeducated then have to be discreet and blend in the herd. They can still at times pass ideas to people they meet. But in a general way, such a situation has a very low yield.
It is then quite clear that a psychoeducated government is essential to at last engage the society in the right direction.
To oppose a psychoeducated government is as bizarre, silly and dangerous as to propose a government of psychiatric patients. The least thing than we can expect from politicians is to be psychologically normal, not weirdos.
Assuming that a power, whatsoever it is, tries to build a harmonious society based on the principles of scientific ethics, they will have to solve the above difficulties, especially the neurotic «autoimmune» reaction which so often sabotaged the social progress.
One of the possible techniques is to provide a gradual transition.
The principle is to use the concepts and customs to which people are attached to, to represent the non-conceptual ideal.
Indeed, one of the most potent properties of non-Aristotelian logic is to be able to present a non-conceptual view with almost any concept (chapter I-9).
To anybody who did not studied the first part of this book on logic, the above statement may look obscure and incomprehensible (they must therefore repeat the class!). Indeed this method is rarely used, but the few examples I have seen show its power:
A friend who made humanitarian activities in Burkina Faso was able to prevent sexual mutilations, while retaining the passage ritual, instead of just rejecting it. In fact it is the Burkinabe themselves who found this solution, after making my friend exhaust all his arguments in a long palaver with the village councils. They used a blunt wood ritual knife, making the gesture but not the injury.
Another similar story I do not remember the source, was a natural reserve, ravaged by poachers. Instead of being punished, they were given the functions of tourist guides, where they finally earned more, and therefore had interest to stop poaching.
In France some children judges were able to halt forms of delinquency among African children, by organizing palavers with the families in their courtroom, with drums and everything. A rather surreal scene, but which allowed them to understand that these children actually had important responsibilities in their African society, while the French law granted them only a statute of irresponsible minors. So the judge was able to explain to the children that they were not specifically targeted by these laws.
These examples certainly needed a lot of humility from those who made them. But it is not expensive to pay, for avoiding suffering or injuries.
It is the same method which allowed the great masters of our time to successfully convey important concepts. For instance, Gandhi adopted the cause of the independence of India. In absolute terms, such a cause has no importance. But the Hindus were really angry against the British colonial policies. Thus, by organizing an independence movement, Gandhi enjoyed a wide support. Moreover, in India, to place oneself into the spiritual domain instead of the political domain, made him considered a guru, earning the respect of all the social classes (in France Gandhi would have been accused of sect and paedophilia). Thus Gandhi was able to pass really important concepts and methods: non-violence (Ahimsa, vegetarianism), but also civil disobedience (Satyagraha) and important economic concepts such as self-reliance, the principle of locality (chapter VI-8) and simplicity, which are at the base of the economic concepts of today environmentalists. In France, his disciple Lanza del Vasto created the only stable community, while the «hippies» or Marxist communities were disputing over trivial things such as turns for dish washing.
Mandela, as shown in the film «Invictus», used rugby, as a means to create a sense of belonging to a single community, and reconcile Whites and Blacks separated by decades of racial hatred and injustice, and avoid a simple inversion of the segregations.
Well, okie, we understand why the merchants of concepts or ideologies CANNOT use this method: because it would expose their own mind limitations! Well, in facts they know very well to exchange conceptual systems and paradigms, but to do this to mislead people, this is called mind control.
We shall see a detailed example of the use of this method in Chapter VI-8 on economy: to offer a variety of economic structures which go further than the egocentric economy, while preserving the personal warranties the people are still attached to.
In a general way, a transition needs to establish Aristotelian rules and laws, which are removed later when people do not need them anymore.
A psychoeducated power needs to show priority actions about the concerns of people: economy, employment, health, security. But the bulk of the real efforts must go to the real problems: ecology, social, happiness, psychoeducation, nature, mysteries...
A delicate situation is when a fraction of the population is psychoeducated, and the other not. The temptation is to exempt the psychoeducated persons from general laws and obligations. The net result, however, will cause a resentment against them, which will ruin subsequent work. Worse, if the power degenerates (which can happen very quickly), then we will end up with a privileged social class (This is exactly how appeared the Soviet nomenklatura). The solution is more subtle: for example, the psychoeducated can use cooperative structures, where their spiritual interest is favoured, but their egocentric interest is disadvantaged (not too much, because they also have human needs for social recognition, food, leisure, etc.). People who are still attached to their personal interest will then avoid these structures, and prefer more traditional companies where on the other hand this self-centred motivation will motivate them. So everyone can spontaneously find a place where he feels good, without disturbing the others, and everyone takes an useful part in the collective construction. This method can even stratify the society without taking too much risks: psychoeducated humanitarian, and luxury business.
This is the method we shall see in more details in Chapter VI-8 on economy.
And of course, all this is accompanied with spiritual and psychological education, especially of children at school, so that the percentage of psychoeducated people can increase. If not, the transition will become permanent...
A situation of dependency is when a person depends on the action of another for survival, happiness or expression. We cannot avoid this to happen, so that it is of utmost importance to bring viable solutions to these situations, as they condition a great number of social structures and activities.
To start with, it was invented many artificial dependencies relationships (to avoid confusion or truncated quotation on my text, they are struck through)
The obedience (to a lord, a party, an army, a boss, a patriarch or
matriarch, a priest, etc.)
For these artificial dependencies to exist, they need that people produce them through their actions (or inaction), and for this that they believe in their existence or in their necessity. Most often, specific concepts were created, so that they get implemented in our thought systems: money, social statutes, contracts, property, etc. And, since concepts are a creation of our minds, to create them is also an action! The creation of laws too is an action. Indeed, often, laws are enacted, written or implied (omerta, «honour») to force people to create or to sustain the dependency. In this case, simply eliminating the concept or the law removes the dependency.
These artificial dependencies oppose the first foundation of ethics: freedom. Most of the time, there are mere egotic instruments to dispose of others (either make them do things, or make them be something). For these reasons, they have no scientific legitimacy, and the people who create or maintain them take the responsibility for the produced suffering.
However we shall see in the next section of this chapter «Working with the neurosis», and throughout this part, that we cannot always remove them immediately: in fact, they are often used as basic concepts for neurotic people to organize their lives. When this happens, we can only try to offset the effects. But it is only when people gradually develop psychoeducation that they can gradually leave their artificial dependencies, keeping only the ones they need, and only while they still need them. Which ones is ultimately their choice. This is the method we propose for the transition toward True Economy, see chapter VI-8.
Besides these artificial dependencies, there are many situations where people are naturally dependent on others for their survival, for their happiness, or for their projects:
- Children depend on their parents
- Members of a couple depend on one another
- Everyone depends on a community (tribe) for being with others and for social recognition.
- Everyone is dependent on farmers to eat, workers for manufacturing, doctors, etc.
- Everyone depends on a place to live in (house, land, village, landscape ...)
- Everyone depends on ecology.
- Disabled, sick, old, depend on their families or on society
- In a team, people depend on each other.
- Large projects (science, space exploration) depend on people.
These natural dependencies are situations which occur naturally without our actions. While artificial dependencies need our action to exist, natural dependencies need our action to be eliminated or offset.
According to the Second Foundation of ethics, there should be no dependencies at all. This is why an important part of social progress efforts is dedicated to eradicating artificial dependencies, while technological progress tends to decrease natural dependencies. The third foundation of ethics applies to this situation: when a person is dependent on another, we must eliminate this dependency, or if we cannot, compensate the effects in a way to ensure happiness and freedom to the dependent person.
But in the continuation, we saw appearing the illusion as what there would be no natural dependencies at all, among «left» intellectuals or in the «politically correct». These ideologies are neither scientific nor spiritual, so that they engage nobody, not even their followers. Not accounting on an existing natural dependency can result in a lack of compensation, which is as harmful as creating an artificial dependency.
I would say that this denial of the reality of the world is pretty crazy. It is as foolish as to walk in the middle of the street, in full traffic, typing text messages on one's mobile phone! Natural inequalities or dependencies exist, that we accept them or not, and we must do with them (Third foundation). It is to refuse to consider them which leads to harmful consequences, while taking them into account allows to mitigate their effects, by various corrective methods, for example help to the disabled.
In my career of an activist for a better world, and saw unthinkable things. For example, to say to a pregnant women, sick and hungry from an ill understood regime, that she had to «support herself». Needless to say she gave up everything. This was a typical case of a blind application of a principle of equality, which led to artificially enhance a natural inequality. Oh, today we would understand that the person who said that had a huge ego problem, much more concerned with «her» freedom that with «lowering» herself to help others.
The second principle of ethics says that no one has the right to classify people into categories. In this it confirms many religious, social or political views.
These categories are artificial if they are established by our concepts, hate/attachment, actions, without matching any law or situation of nature (to avoid confusion or truncated quotation on my text, they are stricked through)
(Races exist naturally, but the idea of considering people
differently is artificial)
(Genes exist naturally, but the idea of considering people
differently is artificial)
(with the exception of physical and emotional needs of procreation
«Legitimate» or «illegitimate» birth
(This notion does not even make sense, and since young child I
consider its followers as nutters).
(except for the principle of locality that
we shall see in chapter VI-8).
(with the exception of different capacities, see further)
Strength, power relationship
For these artificial categories to «exist», people need to create specific concepts, sometimes laws. And after, they must believe that these laws and concepts exist «naturally» and that they «force» them to behave differently for people of different categories (As of course it is never to help people, it is always for segregation, as always is the purpose of these sadomasochist games, eh?).
These artificial categories oppose the second foundation of ethics: equality. For this reason, they have no legitimacy. They therefore can not be legalized, and the people who create or maintain them take responsibility for the resulting suffering.
(«Natural» means here that these categories exist without our actions or opinions)
But here too there are real and irreducible differences between people:
- Psychiatric patients have few or no free will. This relieves them from the responsibility for their actions. But the danger they present to themselves and to others can justify restrictions on their freedom. However, these persons are not at fault, so that these restrictions precisely call for compensation, according to the third foundation of ethics. This compensation will be a pleasant and respectful living standard, adapted to their lower capacities, while we offer them opportunities of expression.
- For sociopaths, these restrictions are of the order of civil rights, such as not having responsibility positions. It also makes sense that they have restrictions on their family rights, since they regularly betray their spouses or children. However, they are not demented, so that they can still be considered responsible of their actions. Differences in degrees between sociopaths are such that we cannot make a single category. I know they would love to be recognized and distinguished, but...
- Persons under justice enquiry or under justice punishment have restrictions, but they still have specific rights and protections. We shall explain this more in details in chapter VI-4. Well, if one disagrees, it is simple to avoid being in this category.
- Children have less judgement skills, or to bear certain situations. This inferiority in facts also justifies restrictions on their movements or activities. However, these persons are not at fault, so that these restrictions also call for compensation, to restore their rights at best. Thus, restrictions on children are also accompanied by exoneration of responsibility, or special protections. Better, children have specific vital needs, from their age: affection of a father and a mother, education, opening to the world. An important part of human and material resources of the society will be dedicated to them. The goal is that their life is rich in experiences and opportunities, including the ones who may be placed in centres. (To do discriminations against children is especially sadomasochist, since it is them who will do the adults of tomorrow, see who will take care of us when we shall be old)
- Normally, the responsibility of compensating children's lack or ability falls on the parents. Parents also have more needs, especially pregnant women and feeding women. For this reason, parents need specific material helps, and sometimes advising or energy gift (social recognition, see chapter V-17)
- Old, sick or physically disabled people, are less able to take care of themselves. Again, the family, or if not the society, will compensate for this. In cases where it is necessary to admit them in suitable institutions, they are also entitled to a pleasant and respectful life, adapted to their lower capacities, with normal opportunities of activity or expression.
- Mentally disabled people lack understanding of the world and ability to organise their lives. Depending of the degree of incapacity, they need counselling, or adapted living places adapted to their lower capacities, with adapted opportunities of activity or expression.
These natural differences are not always lower capacities. Other cases point at different capacities:
- Men and women, about procreation and young children (breastfeeding, maternal tenderness). I do not see how denying these differences would restore an impossible identity between the two. We naturally have different bodies and different roles in the areas of reproduction and children. In this case, true equality is to accept these things, and to live with happily in complementarity. Let us say that men and women have equal rights, while not being identical.
- We find a similar situation with the various abilities in activity, for instance intellectual and manual. Both are as much useful and admirable. They are complementary, as each is powerless without the other. So discriminations here are especially idiotic: salaries, for instance, should be equal.
Other differences point this time to superiorities:
- The persons detaining a talent, a skill, knowledge, experience, spiritual mastery. In a state of law (average level of the compromises in a quadripolar diagram), people may seek to provide them with favours, to encourage them (more pay, more social recognition...). But in a psychoeducated society (upper level of the non-duality) we rather assume that everyone is special and deserves special attention.
- In some cases, like gifted children, giving them a special life may backfire: they just need a normal life, like everybody, with buddies and adventures, not to be locked in a special school.
-We shall study animals and nature in chapter VI-7. Let us say in short that the inability of these categories to defend themselves does not mean that humans have all the rights on them. To destroy ecology is even completely masochistic, given the means at its disposal to eliminate us. It has begun, get the head out of the sand.
The care is to provide with all or part of the needs of a person, to discharge this person from this concern or this work. This can also include decisions concerning a person. The best known example is the support of children by their parents. But we also have care for the sick, disabled, old, etc.
Caring has often been used as an opportunity to exercise power on the beneficiary: ideological formatting of children, taking advantage from the weakness of the sick, etc. Some political and religious authorities also use it to control citizens (dictatorships, sects) and take decisions for them, often against their will or against their interest.
In reality, caring may be necessary (Third Foundation) to compensate for an inferiority of fact (childhood, illness, disability, psychiatric trouble...). but the third foundation also specifies «restore an equal access for all to the first foundation of ethics.» Under these conditions, the care must never be an opportunity to exercise an egocentric power, but rather a responsibility or a service for the person, or even self-denial, for this person to be still able to accomplish something of his own profound purposes.
But caring is not only about charity: it is a very common economy functioning. In economy, caring, or rather supporting in this case, may be about assuming an activity or a decision for a lot of people who cannot necessarily give their opinion. For instance we can define technical standards or develop systems. However, we cannot go as far as taking decisions about the fundamental goals of these people. Yet this is what do companies like Linden Lab (Second Life), etc.
In economy, we also speak of supporting persons who are deprived of resources (unemployed, single parents) or of rights (climate refugees, migrants, etc.). This is good, when these things happen. But a system which generates lack of resources or of rights is clearly a perverse system to prohibit in emergency.
We studied with more details in Chapter V-12 that the very functioning of the human brain makes that we are all suffering from neurosis. Neurosis is a psychological disorder which makes us feel inappropriate desires or feelings about a situation, such as for instance racism.
I make it clear here that it is psychological disorder, not psychiatric, not genetic, not congenital. The difference is huge, since everyone can heal a psychological disorder with simple and easily understandable methods while the other disorders require a medical treatment.
Worse, neurosis make us have «hallucinations»: the opinions, which are beliefs about some aspect of reality. These opinions self-maintain, because we feel that the arguments which go in the direction of neurosis are «pleasant». The facts which go against are felt as «unpleasant» or «disturbing», and even they are automatically eliminated by the brain before we become aware of their existence. For example a racist «sees» only the arguments against the hated race. Even sometimes we see the telltale facts, but the reasoning to the conclusion is not done: Haroun Tazieff quoted «blanks» in the accident of the Pierre Saint Martin, where one of his teammates died: his consciousness had simply ignored yet visible signs of the impending accident! Opinions are concepts, but a variant is the feeling (in the meaning of judgement), where an objective element of reality make us feel attraction or repulsion: we then say that something «is» attractive or disgusting. Often people take decisions out of feelings, out of synchronism with the real stakes.
This situation makes that most people do not find the truth by themselves. Instead, they are subjected to «opinions» or «feelings» that they even not choose, picked at random of pleasant or unpleasant encounters. But they yet see them as «their personality», or even sacred. From there comes, it will be understood, the abundance of evil and negative actions, that most people are accomplishing while thinking to be «logical», «rational», «of good morality» «in their right», «cool» and even «free»!
Neurotic people behave randomly, are punished or punish at random, are happy or suffer at random, while having the feeling of leading a logical and orderly life, and to control their thoughts. Often they inflict themselves appalling suffering, thinking that they are «right» (war, prudishness, economic austerity...) or that it is «the others» who are «bad» (racism, extremism). We can feel compassion for such a miserable existence, but unfortunately there is not much we can do: if we try to help these people, we are called a sect. So few are consecrating time to such an unproductive task...
Law and governments are what enabled stable human societies to exist despite this haphazardous situation: the fear of punishment is often a stronger feeling that the neurotic desire to commit a prohibited action.
However, this method quickly found its limits: the rulers whoever they are (nobles, priests, soviets, democratic politicians, television, forum moderator...) being as much neurotic and unable to control themselves than the average, History is a succession of regimes as fanciful and cruel as the other. And from this point of view, our suicidal regimes (climate, nuclear power, pesticides) are as cruel as the inquisitions or the heaps of severed heads of old. Just that they do not dare to show it in front (vivisection, slaughtering plants, etc. hidden to the public)
So that clearly our organized ssocieties are just a palliative, maintaining a superficial social order without really bringing solutions.
This situation would be hopeless if there was not free will (chapter V-3) to free our reasoning and sensibility from the neurosis and find the truth. This is what philosophers and moralists did for centuries, and which allowed a constant progress of moral conceptions and of the laws which follow. Our societies (2012) widely benefit of this, although maintaining justice and truth is always a constant battle against the neurosis and the egos.
But there is much more: the spiritual practices which are spreading today now allow to control our neurosis. (Psychological practices also, if given a clear purpose). For instance a racism neurosis is ridiculously easy to fix once we know how. (Unless I am the reincarnation of His HyperHoliness the Great Dalai Galactic Controller of the Smurlificious planets, which I was not informed).
This leads to the possibility of psychoeducated people (chapter V-12), able to control their neurosis. Such people are then able to act fairly, without being enticed by governments or supervised by laws. A society running in this way is then a psychoeducated society (Chapter VI-14). We are still far from a fully psychoeducated society, which would no more require a governments or laws. But already, that democracy survives demonstrates some psychoeducation: Not to get the bludgeon out each time we meet people with different opinions.
But today, with the availability of effective spiritual practices, the possibility of psychoeducation (and even its ease, for the common neurosis) makes the neurotic majority liable for its actions. Just like a person acting under drug is liable of his actions (nothing obliged him to take drugs) a person acting under neurosis is responsible for his actions, because nothing prevented him to develop his free will, or to control his neurosis (I found this alone without any help, so...). Only a mental disability or a psychiatric disorder may waive this responsibility, because in this case the person has no free will, or cannot understand the situations (chapter V-3).
Almost all religions or governments who tried to impose meaningful ideals failed. Some were able to remain in place longer, by force or by social conformism, but few actually managed to change people, or to maintain a happy society longer than their generation.
The reason is, as we saw in the previous subchapter, the neurosis of people, which make them prefer arbitrary «opinions», instead of a truth, even approximate. So they reject the beneficial power, or this power degenerates itself, which of course makes it work against the stated purpose (soviets).
If we have a psychoeducated elite, we may think that it can help the neurotic majority. Well, if the psychoeducated don't have the political power, we already are bad: the neurotic governments and powers always see the psychoeducated as a threat, and they do everything to thwart then, even against the interest of the country. This was very visible, for example with climate change: the new nobility of high financials and their media clergy did everything to deny it, even if they would earn more money with building thermochemical plants or aerothermic plants.
If this psychoeducated elite has the power, we might think that it can really change things. But they cannot force people. If they do, they soon realize that power is only a convention, a concession that the governed make to the rulers: in clear people would revolt, or if they cannot, they would resist passively (This is what produced the poor performance of the Soviet economy, except for a few areas where the workers were motivated, like weapons or space).
Thus, even if the psychoeducated have the power (political, religious, media, psychological, Internet...) it is not easy for them to transmit their wisdom. They must first express their ideas using the concepts of the people, in order not to provoke a rejection neurosis. This step is relatively easy, but not very productive. The difficulties arise when it comes to passing nuances, which are then perceived as concessions to the imaginary «enemy» that neurotic people always have. In fact, at this stage, we can move forward only step by step, and often individual per individual. We walk on eggshells, because at any moment an offended neurotic can excite the others and cause a counter-revolution.
If the psychoeducated have the ability to make laws, these laws may then represent wisdom. However it is difficult to transcribe non-dualities into Aristotelian statements, without losing a lot of their power. Most of the time, you get a text all in «but-so-in-case-where» and a neurotic person will at once grasp at one of the two terms of a non-duality, while ignoring the other.
We shall all the same see throughout this part how non-Aristotelian scientific ethics can be translated into Aristotelian laws. For example we can often offer simple but powerful concepts, which induce the understanding of the underlying non-Aristotelian concept. We shall see several in this part, especially in chapter VI-8 on economy.
In fact, the direction of non-psychoeducated people by psychoeducated people is a patient step by step work, requiring a constant presence and decisions at every moment.
The effectiveness of such a work is closely related to the confidence that the non-psychoeducated will place in the psychoeducated. The later will have to concretely demonstrate the value of their wisdom, from the beginning and at any time thereafter. To destroy this trust of the population into its elite is the purpose of these cabals we so often see, like false accusations of cult, of paedophilia, etc.
In Tantras, this relationship of trust is called Samaya, and precisely it depends closely on the image of the master, who therefore must demonstrate the highest ethical standards, in addition to demonstrating the actual results of his teaching. This is the condition for neurotic disciples to agree to submit to a long and demanding asceticism, and in particular to agree to give up their erroneous opinions/attachments. The religions whose leaders failed in their ethical obligations all collapsed or degenerated into a mere mundane power. A similar functioning can be expected in any situation where psychoeducated people attempt to direct or educate neurotic people.
So the simplest solution would still be that the psychoeducation methods are taught at school: people then would do the work themselves, without the need for guides or control. They might even develop their free will, and in this way rapidly surpass their masters.
Things would be so much easier if governments listened to the scientific and spiritual, instead of ignorant and stupid «political parties» and «trade unions».
If the media, intellectuals and artists showed fifty shades of happiness, instead of grey and dirt.
If the voters voted for valuable candidates, instead of obeying the television.
In short, if everybody pedalled on the bicycle, and in the right direction.
Because it is not really possible to force people to evolve and become smart. But happily there are many other methods, like informing, showing the good example, which are starting to work (February 2016) and to give visible results.
And this is possible. There are partial examples, sometimes at government level. There is the example of what was done in some Buddhist countries (Bhutan, Sri Lanka, etc.) but this would still limit the thing to one religion. Therefore let us include here a totally different example, just to show that things are definitively not bound to any set of concepts, purposes or culture: the «French method» where soldiers trained in a minimum of moral discipline, showing their concern of the people and victims, prove infinitely more psychoeducated than the terrorists nutters they are fighting. They demonstrated the power of the ideas I am presenting here, to the point that the Indian Army adopted the same methods, and successfully ended decades of guerrilla in Kashmir. Well, with this example, I'm definitely burned in the eyes of my former leftist or anarchist buddies, ha ha ha ha! Sorry guys, but the army evolved, not you.
This is nice. But there is still much better, much more efficient.
Inter-religious group prayers for positive purposes.
Why inter-religious? (non-denominational or independent spirituality works too). Because we do this for everybody, not for just a set or category of people. In this way we are creating a collective mind, which is starting to operate.
Do not yet expect miracles: we are still in the first gear only. But the process is started. Nothing can stop it now. Ask for everything: the full magical Elven civilization! (chapter VI-16)
The two necessities, equality of resources, and assigning positions to competent people, may conflict.
All depends on what is understood by merit:
-To assume a function is a responsibility, a service which is performed for the society. And for this to be effective, we must assign the responsibility to the competent person.
-Therefore a function cannot be entrusted to an incompetent or a dishonest person, even if they have «earned» it by studies, seniority, etc. If we want to «reward» somebody incompetent, for instance if he served the society, then it should be done otherwise, for example by offering advantages or benefits to this person. But not by offering him a function where he would harm the society! It is to avoid this kind of thing that we ousted the former feudal system, ok?
The only true meritocracy is that of competence, knowledge, honesty.
In principle, wages should be equal for all, for equal work. However, some functions require more studies: in a neurotic or egocentric society, this may require higher wages to get people to study. But psychoeducated people have no use of such incentives.
In a neurotic society like the current human societies, the ability to define ethics provides a power. This is what happened with some religions, former references in ethics, but which widely abused this position to impose their prudish and masochistic conceptions, while offering themselves sumptuous residences. This explains their rejection by a growing number of people over the centuries, to the point we arrive today to a racist rejection of religions. An ethical science should theoretically eliminate this problem, by providing an objective definition of ethics. However, the temptation will appear for the scientist himself to tamper his results, out of a personal interest. This is what happened with technocracy or vivisection (ad-hoc behaviourist «theories» denying animal sensitivity, «sociological» theories «explaining» green claims by psychological problems, see chapter II-7).
The traditional response of the rule of law is the separation of powers, here between the scientific power (to find the principles of ethics), and the legislative and judicial powers (who will translate these ethical principles in laws and judgements). This separation did not existed in the ancient religious government, hence the numerous abuses which were observed.
Well, this is just a recipe among others, to avoid neurotic persons to fall again and again in their ruts. But it is not a panacea: today the abyssal separation between the religious power and the political power actually leads to the opposite excess: the exclusion of spirituality from society (media cynicism, non-violence prohibited at school, hunt for «ostentatious signs», anti-human social decisions, etc.) forcing it to take refuge in the private and in the secret. A miscalculation, certainly, because in this way spiriyuality is much more powerful, safe from media ridicule. We shall speak again of this, when time comes.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.